HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » MSNBC Breaking: Garland a...

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:04 PM

MSNBC Breaking: Garland about to announce plan to secure voting rights!

Stay tuned!

28 replies, 1346 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply MSNBC Breaking: Garland about to announce plan to secure voting rights! (Original post)
MoonRiver Friday OP
hlthe2b Friday #1
malaise Friday #9
Fiendish Thingy Friday #2
qazplm135 Friday #4
zaj Friday #5
bigtree Friday #6
StarfishSaver Friday #13
Fiendish Thingy Friday #17
StarfishSaver Friday #18
Fiendish Thingy Friday #21
StarfishSaver Friday #22
Name removed Friday #3
PortTack Friday #7
brooklynite Friday #23
PortTack Sunday #25
brooklynite Sunday #27
brooklynite Friday #24
CatWoman Friday #8
MoonRiver Friday #10
bearsfootball516 Friday #11
WarGamer Friday #12
Takket Friday #15
WarGamer Friday #16
StarfishSaver Friday #19
PortTack Sunday #26
WarGamer Sunday #28
Goodheart Friday #14
StarfishSaver Friday #20

Response to MoonRiver (Original post)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:11 PM

1. Is CNN or MSNBC covering it live?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:40 PM

9. It's on MSNBC now n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Original post)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:14 PM

2. How can the DOJ secure voting rights when Congress can't? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:21 PM

4. yeah

pretty skeptical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:24 PM

5. Law suits to over turn laws being past?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:27 PM

6. because it was Congress which afforded the agency those oversight responsibilities

...including:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965

Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993

The Help America Vote Act of 2002

https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-voting-section

cases: https://www.justice.gov/crt/voting-section-litigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 05:57 PM

13. Because DOJ has enforcement powers Congress doesn't have

It takes all three branches of government to protect voting rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 07:43 PM

17. But DOJ can only enforce laws already passed, and more importantly, upheld by SCOTUS

Are there voting rights laws currently on the books that, if enforced aggressively, would thwart the Jim Crow 2.0 laws currently being passed by states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 07:52 PM

18. Yes

They aren't as strong as they were before Shelby, but they're still there.

The Voting Rights Act is still the law. The Act's preclearance provision, which provided a very robust proactive method for preventing the suppression of voting rights, was gutted by the Supreme Court. But other sections of the act that allow for individual lawsuits to be brought is still in place.

That's one of the things that Merrick Garland talked about today - the fact that the preclearance provision is gone means they must rely on the other provisions for bringing lawsuits case by case and state by state, which is really hard, but doable. You may have heard him say "We're going to need a lot more lawyers." That's what he was talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 08:50 PM

21. Will the courts allow suits to proceed for laws not yet implemented?

I mean, if no election has yet been held in a state with new Jim Crow laws, who has been injured, who would the plaintiff be?

IANAL, this is an honest question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 08:51 PM

22. Yes - Injunctive relief is possible

Several suits have already been filed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Original post)


Response to MoonRiver (Original post)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:28 PM

7. Voting is considered a civil right and protected by the constitution

Kristen Clarke recently appointed to the civil rights division of the doj is the perfect person for this challenge

Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits states from taking away their citizensí rights without due process of law. One such right, of course, is the right to vote. And the Supreme Court has made clear many times, in more than a hundred yearsí worth of precedents, that the constitutional right to vote does not just mean the right to put a ballot in a box, but also the right to have that ballot counted toward determining the electionís results. For a state legislature to invalidate a popular election would be equivalent to simply refusing to count the citizensí votes. The Constitution unambiguously prohibits disenfranchising any eligible voters, much less an entire stateís worth.

More at the link
https://www.justsecurity.org/73274/no-state-legislatures-cannot-overrule-the-popular-vote/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PortTack (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 09:10 PM

23. Yes and no...

The Constitution grants States the absolute right to decide how Electors for President are selected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 13, 2021, 03:10 AM

25. They can decide how they are selected, but not the actual selection of said electors

Each party selects electors

This from a SCOTUS decision 7/2020

And second, the Courtís decision reinforces the validity of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under National Popular Vote, states that combine for at least 270 electoral votes agree to award their electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most individual votes across the nation. (Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, totaling 196 electoral votes, have already passed the measure.)

In the 18 states currently without faithless elector laws, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would operate in a manner identical to the system that they have been using for over 200 years. In these states (which currently use the state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes), the presidential electors are chosen by the political party whose presidential candidate that receives the most votes within the state

More at the link

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PortTack (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 13, 2021, 09:26 AM

27. That assumes that the State has authorized a vote for Electors by the public....

They are under no obligation to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PortTack (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 09:11 PM

24. Yes and no...

The Constitution grants States the absolute right to decide how Electors for President are selected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Original post)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 02:35 PM

8. K; R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Original post)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 03:03 PM

10. Garland said he's going to double the amount of lawyers in our Civil Rights division!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Original post)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 05:55 PM

11. Hope to see him come out firing on all cylinders on this!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Original post)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 05:57 PM

12. DoJ can only go so far... Federal Courts and eventually SCOTUS will have the final say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 06:04 PM

15. what worries me is most of these laws are DOA at the Federal courts, but NOT necessarily SCOTUS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 06:05 PM

16. Federal Courts are different after the Trump Court stuffing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 07:53 PM

19. Different, but not completely lost, as we saw in the aftermath of the election

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 13, 2021, 03:13 AM

26. 61 cases...60 either thrown out or ruled against following the election, even with frump appointed

Judges, right up to an including SCOTUS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PortTack (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 13, 2021, 09:35 PM

28. yeah but we're talking about Voter Rights investigations led by the DoJ

The Judiciary would be a minefield to say the least.

States will sue and take it to Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Original post)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 06:00 PM

14. Well, that's a start. I'm waiting impatiently for bigger news.

Where's the plan for accountability?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 11, 2021, 07:53 PM

20. What do you mean by "plan for accountability"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread